To Kill or Not to Kill? The great Bigfoot divide

Thanks to Scott McMan (GhostTheory.com) for blowing the lid off this thing. Trust us on this, Scott has more to tell, but he ain't tellin' until he gets a clear-signal. From what we gathered the finger pointing has already begun!

Yesterday, we posted an article about the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy group's involvement with a recent Bigfoot shooting. As far as we know, it's uncertain if they killed anything or anyone. You can read up on it by clicking here.

What happened on that night in July raised many questions. It has prompted countless discussions on whether or not it's right to kill an unknown species for the sake of science. Many feel that a specimen must be taken to further the study of sasquai (this is a real word) species. Others who have distanced themselves from this "pro-kill" idea say they are "pro-proof" and believe there are better, more responsible ways to go about trying to obtain a specimen, preferably a live one.

Ontario Wildlife Field Researcher Timothy D Ervick says, although he's pro-proof, this doesn't nesseccarily mean he's pro-kill. "I'm a Pro-proof researcher not necessarily a pro kill one, but what I've seen lately is manic hunters unloading into what they think is a Bigfoot. Not what they 'know' to be. Someone is going to get killed. Those kid's are very lucky. Every hunter in a Ghillie suit is a target when it comes to researchers with gun," Ervick said.

"Manic hunters have no place in the bush," he said.

Others suggested tranquilizing the creature. The problem with tranquilizing is that tranquilizers are tricky. Many wild game animal has been killed by tranquilizers even when administered by professionals under controlled conditions in measured quantities generally known to work on certain sizes and species of wildlife. Incorrect doses of sedative tranquilizer could be deadly, especially if the weight of the Bigfoot creature is unknown.

Here's a recent article by John D from meetstheweird.com posted on October 26. In it, he writes about the Honobia, Oklahoma Bigfoot shooting incident that took place in July 2011 on Charles Branson's property:

There has been a bit of a flap going on in the Bigfoot hunting community regarding a research opening fire on a Sasquatch during a field investigation. While I want to come back to the particular incident later, this event has served to cast a spotlight on an issue that divides the Bigfoot research community. On one side, you have the no-kill researchers who are completely opposed to any attempt to kill a Sasquatch. Other researchers, however, feel that a specimen must be taken to further the study of the creature. Looking at this one issue, the two groups couldn’t seem to be any more different in their goals, but they both want the same thing. Both pro-kill and no-kill researchers ultimately want to protect the Sasquatch and their habitat.

While no-kill research is important to understanding Sasquatch and how it lives, ultimately a specimen will have to be taken to have the species formally classified and accepted by the mainstream scientific community. While unfortunate, this is the process by which new species are identified. Without formal identification there is no way that Sasquatch or its habitat will have any hope of receiving protection under the law. Especially considering that protecting Bigfoot, in its natural habitat, will have a significant impact on the multi-billion dollar lumber industry. There can be no controversy regarding the existence of Sasquatch that could be leveraged by the lumber industry to limit or prevent habitat preservation efforts. As saddening as the unnatural death of a Bigfoot would be, the simple fact is that its sacrifice would benefit the rest of its species.

That being said, I hardly think that every Sasquatch researcher that sets foot in the woods should head out looking to bag a Bigfoot. If a Bigfoot is taken, it needs to be done humanely as possible AND in a way that allows the scientific community a viable sample to be used for classification. Ideally, a team looking to collect a Sasquatch specimen should include an experienced marksman/hunter armed with a weapon that will allow a clean kill with minimal tissue damage. The last thing Bigfoot and the Bigfoot research community needs is an animal being taken in a way that makes its remains useless. That would be a horrific waste and is inexcusable. Additionally, if an expedition intends to take a sample for classification they need to be very clear of their intentions with whomever is granting them access to the property they are hunting on. If a landowner does not want a Sasquatch killed on their property for whatever reason, that is well within their rights. Ignoring this would endanger all Bigfoot research as private land owners may become less likely to allow any researcher on their land for fear of it being turned into a shooting gallery in spite of their wishes.

This brings us back to the incident in question. This past July a team member performing an investigation with Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy opened fire on a Sasquatch while on the land of one Charles Branson. While this particular event has become somewhat of a black-eye for the Bigfoot community, there is quite a bit that can be taken away from it for future expeditions. Foremost, it would seem that Mr. Branson was unaware of the groups intent to take a specimen for analysis. Had the group been upfront about their intentions, Mr. Branson could have easily either rescinded his permission to access his property or made clear that agreeing to not harm any Sasquatch was required to access his property. Secondly, according to the account released by TBRC the individual who opened fire on the Bigfoot with a shotgun, “firing all the rounds in rapid succession”. The landowner’s nephew was on the property at the time of the shooting and he believed the gunfire he heard to have been from a “machine gun”. Ignoring any other issues (including possible safety implications), witness reports like this paint Bigfoot hunters who would like to collect a specimen in a bad light, making them out to be crazed Yosemite Sam types who would shoot down a whole forest in the hopes of hitting a bigfoot. Hopefully the community as a whole can learn from the mistakes made by the TBRC team and move forward better prepared to secure the future of the Sasquatch species.

Ultimately, it is up to each individual Bigfoot researcher to decide whether they want to be involved with the potential killing of a Sasquatch. It is perfectly fine for a researcher to decide that they want to focus their research on observing Bigfoot in their natural habitat without doing any harm to the creatures. Hopefully researchers who make this choice will acknowledge the benefit collecting a Sasquatch specimen will bring to the field and not attempt to prevent that from happening. Ultimately, this misguided “protection” could end up hurting the entire Bigfoot population. On the same token, researchers who choose to attempt collecting a Sasquatch specimen need to ensure they conduct themselves in the most professional manor and are beyond reproach in their methods or they risk damaging no only their own reputation, but the reputation of the entire community as well.

[via: www.meetstheweird.com]